People don't give satan enough credit damn it!

[WITHTEETH]

Ok here is some weird logic so tell me if it sounds good from a imaginary view point of an atheist pretending to be a theist,

God created man, man sinned because of evil. where did the evil come from? the devil.
Where did the devil come from? maybe at birth God and the devil where seperated.

Pretty abstract stuff, whats everybodies view point?

[snap crafter]

Satan is the imaginary character in the biblical texts. The devil comes from god's heavenly hosts who decided to have human emotions, god kicks him down. I say satan came from the future, that's the only logical conclusion

[WITHTEETH]

Ah, so he can travel at light speed. Damnit, so smart he is!

[noblief]

the devil is a product of god according to biblical text, so inturn god himself gcreated evil if evil came from the devil. God kicked the devil out of "heaven" and sent him down on us.

[Nicole]

Satan is a fallen angel, isn't he? Good became evil through an act of free will just like in the garden of eden. So the idea is that god gave us and the angels free will so that we could choose between good and evil....that, in turn, means that evil had to already exsist or there wouldn't be any evil to choose hence no free will needed. Evil preceeds god, satan and man.

[thomas]

I'd say that everything that God created was good, but that there was also a capacity for evil in the creation. The choice of evil was not an act of God but an act of the creation.

[ghoulslime]

Actually, I met a Satan worshipper a few years back and had the misfortune of having to spend several hours in an airport waiting room with him. He was an extremely obnoxious fellow, but in retrospect the experience was educational. I was surprised to learn what Satanists believe. It's really not as wacky as I thought. In many ways it is more practical and reasonable than Christianity. I researched it later and found it not that unpleasant of a religion. If you are going to believe in dogma, you might as well believe in one that is fair to you.

[calpurnpiso]

I'd say that everything that God created was good, but that there was also a capacity for evil in the creation. The choice of evil was not an act of God but an act of the creation.
Hmm..don't gods 'create' everything, thus their title of 'god"?...so, didn't they created evil also, making them EVIL gods?.....AHHHH...there comes that 'free will" scaping logic nonsense eh?...but doesn't this makes god punish the "evil doer" thus making god evil in itself?....Christian logic is always amusing...:)

[thomas]

Is it evil or good to act justly against evil ? I say good.

[TheSnake]

Actually, I met a Satan worshipper ... I was surprised to learn what Satanists believe.
Satan worshipping and satanism are not the same. Satanists are sort of atheists/agnostics that say that if there's a god, it's evil (and probably doesn't deserve to be worshipped). Satan worshippers of course worship Satan as their god.

[Nicole]

Is it evil or good to act justly against evil ? I say good.
It depends on the 'evil' in question and the 'good'. A lot of religious people think that abortion and gays are evil. They act against that evil with what they consider good. I, on the other hand, think the opposite.

Fanatics are famous for saying that their cause is to 'fight evil'.

The problem with the 'god' created it all theory is that he must have created evil so fighting his 'evil' is not good. Does that make sense? Unless he created evil for us to fight...then he's cruel. If evil already existed then 'god' didn't create everything, did he? It's all very confusing I think....

[thomas]

I don't think God created evil. I think he created beings with the capacity for evil, and with free-will. Anyway, the claim cal made was that God is evil because He judges people who do evil, and I was just pointing out that we don't typically call e.g. the judicial system evil because of what they do.

[Lurker]

The problem with the 'god' created it all theory is that he must have created evil so fighting his 'evil' is not good. Does that make sense? Unless he created evil for us to fight...then he's cruel. If evil already existed then 'god' didn't create everything, did he? It's all very confusing I think....
If I "create" a perfectly safe house I still can't get around the fact that the potential for harm exists. People living in it could fall down the stairs, drown in the bathtub, etc. God created the house we live in and with that comes the potential for evil. That's the way I see it.

[ocmpoma]

"If I "create" a perfectly safe house I still can't get around the fact that the potential for harm exists."

If the house was "perfectly safe", then there would be no potential for harm. Unless by perfectly safe you meant that the house itself was completely safe from damage.

[Sternwallow]

"Well, I would like to see my old ancestor, Satan. I have no special regard for Satan, but I
can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a
little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue Bibles
against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We
have only the evidence for the prosecution, and yet we have rendered the verdict. To my
mind, this is irregular. It is un-English; it is un-American. It is French. Without this
precedent Dreyfus could never have been condemned.

Of course Satan has some case, that goes without saying. It may be a poor one, but that can
be said about any of us. As soon as I can get at the facts I intend to undertake his
rehabilitation myself, if I can find an unpolitic publisher.

We may not pay him reverance, for that would be indiscreet; but we can at least respect his
talents. A person who has for untold centuries maintained the imposing position of
spiritual head of four-fifths of the hunan race, and political head of the whole of it, must
have executive abilities of the loftiest order. I would like to see him. I would rather
see him and shake him by the tail than any other statesman on the planet."

Mark Twain

[UnknownUser]

Yes but god knowing all things and being omnipotent and omniscience would of known of what Satin would do and therefore created him knowing that he would release evil into the world, opening Pandora’s box as it were...

Therefore god is clearly not the 'Creator of a perfectly safe house'...

[ocmpoma]

"Who says god can't test and/or punish us with evil? He's God, he can do whatever the fuck he wants, no? Why does it have to make sense to us? When you poke sticks into your ant farm you are not obliged to explain your actions to your resident ant population"

Assuming this god exists, then both I and the ants in your example are clearly free to feel that the god/ant farmer is a fuckhead.

[Kamikaze189]

If god creates anything that can be evil, HE'S MAKING EVIL.

[thomas]

If god creates anything that can be evil, HE'S MAKING EVIL.
This doesn't necessarily follow. Imagine that God created a universe that had the capacity to be evil but never was evil. In this circumstance is there anything about the creation that has involved God making evil ? The capacity for evil is different than the actuality of evil being committed.

[ocmpoma]

While the capacity for evil is not evil, in this case, since the creator created the capacity for evil, any evil that did occur would be the creator's responsibility (unless the creator didn't have free will, because it was omniscient).

[thomas]

Is the Ford motor company responsible if I crash my car and kill some people whilst driving ?

[ocmpoma]

Ah, but Ford is not omnipotent and omniscient, is it? Furthermore, when I said above that the creator created the capacity for evil, what I meant was that the creator, since it created everything, specifically created the capacity for evil.
It would be as if Ford created the car, the road, you, the people struck and their families and friends, the relative (and fatally so) strengths of the car's materials and the people's, the causes of the accident, your fallability as a driver, the events which led to the people being present to be struck, and the laws of physics, all the while knowing that it the accident would happen. If that were so, then yes, I would say that Ford was to be accountable.

[thomas]

Ford is not omnipotent or omniscient but as a society we know all of the facts in your post concerning the possible and actual evils that can be caused by motor cars. But we also conclude that the good caused by them outweighs the evil caused. That is, the capacity for evil created in a car is a necessary part of creating the good of transport for humans.

If as a society of humans we are able to make these assessments, how much more capable would an omniscient, omnipotent God be of doing that, and generating a net good ? Maybe in this sense, I do agree with you that God is responsible for evil, but not the creator of it. It's not what He desires but what He permits.

[Kamikaze189]

It's more than that though. Ford would KNOW your car was going to crash, and at which intersection, and at what time. Why would Ford give you a car knowing you would crash it, if the intention was not to crash it?

...I'd like to see that court case.

[thomas]

Take a look at the free-will vs omniscience thread that is running. I don't agree with your premise that omniscience negates free-will.

[Kamikaze189]

I guess we aren't going to be getting anywhere then.

Not like that's anything new.

[WITHTEETH]

Why didn't god create a goverment for us in the first place to protect us better? why didn't he guide us in the right direction to make what we have closer to a utopia? nah instead he sits by and lets us kill eachother over misunderstandings, hes an accompliss to murder, rape, and war.

What do i care. there is no god. Unless you want to prove it, but still it wouldn't make a difference in my life.

[Viole]

Hold on a moment. If everything god created was good, and god created evil, then evil is good. It's simplicity itself.

Or; if the potential for evil did not exist before the creation, then god created the potential for evil. Conspiracy to murder is a crime, even when no murder takes place.

[ocmpoma]

"Ford is not omnipotent or omniscient but as a society we know all of the facts in your post concerning the possible and actual evils that can be caused by motor cars. But we also conclude that the good caused by them outweighs the evil caused. That is, the capacity for evil created in a car is a necessary part of creating the good of transport for humans.
If as a society of humans we are able to make these assessments, how much more capable would an omniscient, omnipotent God be of doing that, and generating a net good ? Maybe in this sense, I do agree with you that God is responsible for evil, but not the creator of it. It's not what He desires but what He permits."

Everything rests on that first sentence. Humans are a far cry from omnipotent. If we evaluate things to determine if there is a 'net good', it is because we have to. An omnipotent being would not have to settle for a 'net good'. It could very easily make it an 'all good'. This also has nothing to do with precluding free will. An omnipotent being could easily make it so that every being with free will would not choose evil. Not could not, but simply would not. God, being omnipotent, had complete control over the set up in Eden, right down to the temperature when Eve bit the apple. God's omniscience and omnipotence place the blame for everything squarely on its shoulders.

At this point, I would like to point out all the hoops a theist must jump through to justify their belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. These hoops include attempts to refute omniscience (or omnipotence) vs. free will, to refute omnibenevolence vs. evil ('net good'), to give examples of objective morality, and to clarify contradictory passages in their scriptures, among others. Mind you, I'm not saying that they don't do a passably good job at the tasks individually. I would like to point out here how much they have to do collectively in order to sustain a premise which is obviously very shaky.

[HeWhoAsks]

If god didn't create evil, where did it come from?

[peepnklown]

If the bible is the word of God then I think we should listen to God for a second.
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[thomas]

I never did like this translation from the KJV. The Hebrew word that is used here can be translated as evil but also as calamity, or disaster even just bad. Looking at the context of the verse it's clearly meant to be used as the opposite of peace ( as light is to darkness, so peace is to ....... ).

Many translations including Jewish translations into English would render this as I make peace and create discord, or something similar.

[Tenspace]

I never did like this translation from the KJV. The Hebrew word that is used here can be translated as evil but also as calamity, or disaster even just bad. Looking at the context of the verse it's clearly meant to be used as the opposite of peace ( as light is to darkness, so peace is to ....... ).

Many translations including Jewish translations into English would render this as I make peace and create discord, or something similar.
thomas, sounds like you're splitting hairs on an invisible unicorn's back... but that's just me. :D

Ten

[Viole]

Oh, Ten, I don't know if you can dismiss Thomas' point so easily. There's a big difference between 'I make peace, and create evil' and 'I make peace, and start wars.' Isn't that the opposite of peace, Thomas? War? You can hardly claim he's talking about natural disasters, without stretching pretty far.

[Another brick in the wall]

Let's assume that evil comes from Satan. Why does god let Satan run around tempting humans? Couldn't god destroy satan if he wanted to? The whole god/satan duality reminds me of Zorastrianism.

[Tenspace]

Hmm, one could make the claim that the opposite of peace is evil. If thomas wishes to balance his point on such a narrow interpretation of a single word, so be it. We could analyze the phrases in context, but I'd rather hear thomas' expansion on how that phrase fits in its place in the bible.

So here's what we have:

I make peace, and create evil: - KJV
I make peace and create discord - earlier Jewish translations
I make peace, and start(create) wars. Logical interpretation based on the antonym of 'peace'

OT God's pretty black and white. I agree that he has the potential to create any bad thing he wishes. Could be war, calamity, pestilence, famine, flood (high on his list), etc. The bible is full of references of God initiating events which really sucked for mankind. Did fatherhood soften him up?

Tenspace

[thomas]

thomas, sounds like you're splitting hairs on an invisible unicorn's back... but that's just me. :D
I'm just trying to prevent my atheist friends from getting their theology all screwed up over one verse in the Bible ;) Of course, I'm open to the possibility that my theology is all screwed up, but don't feel it's likely I'm going to get a good grounding in where I'm going wrong on it from RA

[thomas]

Everything rests on that first sentence. Humans are a far cry from omnipotent. If we evaluate things to determine if there is a 'net good', it is because we have to. An omnipotent being would not have to settle for a 'net good'. It could very easily make it an 'all good'. This also has nothing to do with precluding free will. An omnipotent being could easily make it so that every being with free will would not choose evil. Not could not, but simply would not. God, being omnipotent, had complete control over the set up in Eden, right down to the temperature when Eve bit the apple. God's omniscience and omnipotence place the blame for everything squarely on its shoulders.
I think it is related to free-will. I don't get your distinction between could not and would not regarding choosing evil. How are they practically different ? A being that can't reject God also can't choose to accept and love God.

At this point, I would like to point out all the hoops a theist must jump through to justify their belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity. These hoops include attempts to refute omniscience (or omnipotence) vs. free will, to refute omnibenevolence vs. evil ('net good'), to give examples of objective morality, and to clarify contradictory passages in their scriptures, among others. Mind you, I'm not saying that they don't do a passably good job at the tasks individually. I would like to point out here how much they have to do collectively in order to sustain a premise which is obviously very shaky.
Hoop jumping my speciality, mr ocmpoma. You guys have me doing it every day. Did you ever consider putting your views to the test in a forum where you'll get stiffer opposition than either Lurker or I can muster ?

[Another brick in the wall]

I would post on christian forum, but they generally have lots of silly rules and boot people they disagree with.

[ocmpoma]

"So here's what we have:

I make peace, and create evil: - KJV
I make peace and create discord - earlier Jewish translations
I make peace, and start(create) wars. Logical interpretation based on the antonym of 'peace'"

Where's Nutritionguy when you need him?

[ocmpoma]

"I think it is related to free-will. I don't get your distinction between could not and would not regarding choosing evil. How are they practically different ?"
This sort of suprises me, coming from a Christian. Aren't you always going on about how while God could choose to declare eating babies as morally right, it never would?

"A being that can't reject God also can't choose to accept and love God."
Why not?

"Hoop jumping my speciality, mr ocmpoma. You guys have me doing it every day. Did you ever consider putting your views to the test in a forum where you'll get stiffer opposition than either Lurker or I can muster ?"
I've thought about. Basically, there are two reasons that I don't.
1) I really don't have the time. Honestly. RA eats up enough of it as it is. I have books to read, you know.
2) My belief system has been put through a pretty strict test already - mine. I've boiled it down to three things, which I posted here once. And no, I don't really feel like looking them up.
Besides, you and lurker make me think plenty as is. It is entirely possible that a bunch of theists would just frustrate the hell out of me, if they didn't boot me off.

[Blod]

Ok here is some weird logic so tell me if it sounds good from a imaginary view point of an atheist pretending to be a theist,

God created man, man sinned because of evil. where did the evil come from? the devil.
Where did the devil come from? maybe at birth God and the devil where seperated.

Pretty abstract stuff, whats everybodies view point?
Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Lamentations 3
37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?
38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

Jeremiah 32
42 For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.

Amos 3
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

etc.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus


So. bc Yhwh talks to me every night before sleep I know that Yhwh is omnibenevolent therefore I conclude that the Babble has been written by Satan to defame Yhwh! Amen

People don't give satan enough credit damn it!
just covered that ;)

[thomas]

Here's the way these verses are traditionally read in the context in which they are written

Lamentations 3
37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?
38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
This is part of a passage that basically says that all bad things which are happening to the Isrealites are a just response from God for their sins. And this verse confirms that the just punishment is from God.

Jeremiah 32
42 For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.
Same thing again, the evil that is being referred to is the just punishment of God on the Isrealites for breaking the covenant with God. This verse shows God's willingness to forgive and be merciful even to those who have rejected Him.

Amos 3
6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
The first 8 verses of this chapter are demonstrating to the Isrealites (again) that they have rejected God and that there is a just punishment for their rejection. Look again at "3:2 You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities."

It's letting the Isrealites know that the calamaties that are befalling them are not by chance or random but instead that God is in control.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus
Leibnez's answer to this is that this is the best of all possible worlds. What that means is that it would be possible for a world to exists with less evil, or even no evil in it. But such a world would not be as good as the actual world that exists. Why is that? Because all evils are necessary evils. Which is to say, that unless that evil existed, a compensating good would not exist.

[Philboid Studge]

the evil that is being referred to is the just punishment of God on the Isrealites for breaking the covenant with God.
Well you can't blame the Israelites for their reluctance -- those first few bris ceremonies must have been brutal. I'm thinking some trial-and-error was involved.

[ocmpoma]

'Leibnez's answer to this is that this is the best of all possible worlds. What that means is that it would be possible for a world to exists with less evil, or even no evil in it. But such a world would not be as good as the actual world that exists. Why is that? Because all evils are necessary evils. Which is to say, that unless that evil existed, a compensating good would not exist."
So, Leibnez was basically assuming what he was seeking to prove.

[GodlessHeathen]

the evil that is being referred to is the just punishment of God on the Isrealites for breaking the covenant with God.
Well you can't blame the Israelites for their reluctance -- those first few bris ceremonies must have been brutal. I'm thinking some trial-and-error was involved.
Not to mention a lack of pain relievers and disinfectants.

[thomas]

'Leibnez's answer to this is that this is the best of all possible worlds. What that means is that it would be possible for a world to exists with less evil, or even no evil in it. But such a world would not be as good as the actual world that exists. Why is that? Because all evils are necessary evils. Which is to say, that unless that evil existed, a compensating good would not exist."
So, Leibnez was basically assuming what he was seeking to prove.
No, he was pointing out that Epicurus's logic didn't necessarily follow.

[ocmpoma]

"No, he was pointing out that Epicurus's logic didn't necessarily follow."
By assuming what he was seeking to prove. He wanted to prove that this is the best of all possible worlds - meaning that it had the most good. But he assumes that all evils are necessary, because (he assumes) good cannot exist without evil, meaning that a balance is required, which is assuming that one needs a balance of good and evil in the 'best' world.
If one does not assume that evil is necessary for good, then the 'best of all possible worlds' does not need evil.

[Blod]

Thomas, you are rationalizing to death. What was that on #44, a rebuttal to what? Even after that post and its “contexts” (which I didn’t negate at any point or even state anything in relation to them for that matter), this “god” *does evil*, still being omni-benevolent and all on the other side, so what use are rationalizations and justifications on any actions of this “god”? What were you trying to say back there? Trying to justify what to whose eyes?

I can bring you a lot of verses where Yhwh intentionally deceives ppl, tells lies, kills, brings destruction, causes wars, etc. etc. If these aren’t “evil”, what is?

My question here is, how do Christians know the Bible isn’t inspired by Satan? (We must give credit where it's due. :D)

[thomas]

It was a rebuttal to the claim that the Bible says that God created evil, rather than just the capacity for evil. My point is that God acting justly to punish people can and will involve suffering but that doesn't make it an instance of God creating evil, any more than you call the courts evil when the impose the suffering of a prison sentence on a murderer.

[HeWhoAsks]

It was a rebuttal to the claim that the Bible says that God created evil, rather than just the capacity for evil.
Good distinction. But, when, in response to
I can bring you a lot of verses where Yhwh intentionally deceives ppl, tells lies, kills, brings destruction, causes wars, etc. etc. If these aren’t “evil”, what is?
you lumped those several things into

My point is that God acting justly to punish people can and will involve suffering. . . .
, all those things Blod mentioned are not punishment.

Deceiving and telling lies are not punishments.

Causing a war, especially considering the inevitable innocent civilians, babies, etc., cannot be considered just (proper) punishment.

[thomas]

I responded earlier to his specific claims about God creating evil. You're right that I didn't respond to his generalisation regarding that. But would be willing to discuss individual claims (but we should probably draw the line at going through thousands of examples).

[calpurnpiso]

The atributes of god are: Create all, Omnipotent, Omniscient, All PERFECT and All GOOD.

This is the problem facing Christians if they use their biological computers and whatever logic they have left after the Rvirus ( religious virus) has infected them: If a god CREATES everything it also created EVIL, but, he created humans giving them free will. Hmm..didn't he know the future?. How can a perfect god create an imperfection? Would a good arquitect created a building that would collapse....AHHH..the arquitect builds in mysterious ways no?.

So, a Christ-psychosis infected brain must resort to these wondering idiocies to justify their irrational way of thinking due to the RVirus infection:

How can the puny mind of man understand that of god? Free will mystery and God works in mysterious ways!.

It is like saying Water is DRY and here are 150 volumes that addresses why it is so!...

When one deals with fairy tales the sky is the limit and empirical aposteriori facts are NEVER there......that is when FAITH TRIGGERS are needed along gullibility, self hypnosis, some psychoactive substances and a little alzheimer pathogens...:)

[Amazonis]

So, a Christ-psychosis infected brain must resort to these wondering idiocies to justify their irrational way of thinking due to the RVirus infection:
If your theory were true, you should at least realise that a virus is a microscopic organism consisting mainly of nucleic acid in a protein coat, multiplying in only living cells and sometimes causing deseases. Unless you think that all christians brains are infected with living organisms, then you should not be calling the problem a virus, or an infection. Also, if beleiving in the supernatural was a brain dissorder, then there would be no diference in diagnosis between someone beleiving in Jesus and someone beleiving in Muhumud - they would both be the same desease with slightly diferent beleifs. For example, a schisophrenic who beleives in fairy's would not be called a "Schists Fairy" sufferer.

[Lurker]

If your theory were true, you should at least realise that a virus is a microscopic organism consisting mainly of nucleic acid in a protein coat, multiplying in only living cells and sometimes causing deseases. Unless you think that all christians brains are infected with living organisms, then you should not be calling the problem a virus, or an infection. Also, if beleiving in the supernatural was a brain dissorder, then there would be no diference in diagnosis between someone beleiving in Jesus and someone beleiving in Muhumud - they would both be the same desease with slightly diferent beleifs. For example, a schisophrenic who beleives in fairy's would not be called a "Schists Fairy" sufferer.
You dare question cal? He's put a lot of time, effort, caffine and a few dozen kegs of schlitz malt liquor into his theory so it's gotta be true.